[sumy23]

Maybe… however in the debate of this law, one side is saying “the law says you need purpose to cause” and the other side is saying “no it doesn’t. If you could read more than 14 words you would know that.”

I’m not a lawyer, but I imagine an objective observer would find the former argument more compelling than the latter.

[dragonwriter]

> however in the debate of this law, one side is saying “the law says you need purpose to cause” and the other side is saying “no it doesn’t. If you could read more than 14 words you would know that.”

> I’m not a lawyer, but I imagine an objective observer would find the former argument more compelling than the latter

Now, I decided not spend more time and money on law school about half way through when I decided I’d rather stay in technology, but I don't see how anyone can argue with a straight face that the mental state requirement “with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm or recklessly creating a risk thereof” (emphasis added) fails to apply to people recklessly causing a risk of public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm just as much a to those acting with purpose to cause such inconvenience, annoyance, and alarm.

[thaumasiotes]

> I’m not a lawyer, but I imagine an objective observer would find the former argument more compelling than the latter.

I like to think that an objective observer might read the statute before deciding which argument he thought was more compelling. Certainly a lawyer would.